Impact - What went wrong?

[GavinR]

There have been a few attempts to bring these characters back to comics and they all fail. Is it the characters themselves? Was it DC trying to start a Marvel style line of comics but the market was flooded at the time? Was is internal issues at DC that caused problems? Was it just marketed poorly?

I got my hands on some of them recently and they aren't terrible. I worked in a comic store back when they were being published and I recall they didn't sell well at all. It seemed like a good idea to get younger readers into comics by offering affordable "new" titles.

[MDG]

I read a few of them, and they were OK--plus I remember some Mike Parobeck in there.

I think the problem was trying to get new, younger readers with basically unknown characters. A kid's going to go into a comic store and want Batman, not The Fly.

Plus, even then, there are just too damn many super heroes out there--why this constant desire to revive everything? (Is the latest attempt at THUNDER Agents still going? Does anybody care?)

[destro]

There have been a few attempts to bring these characters back to comics and they all fail. Is it the characters themselves? Was it DC trying to start a Marvel style line of comics but the market was flooded at the time? Was is internal issues at DC that caused problems? Was it just marketed poorly?

I got my hands on some of them recently and they aren't terrible. I worked in a comic store back when they were being published and I recall they didn't sell well at all. It seemed like a good idea to get younger readers into comics by offering affordable "new" titles.

I read a few of these as a young teenager and you're right, they aren't bad.

But to the average person, would you rather read Black Hood or Punisher? The Fly or Spider-Man? Captain America or Shield? I think for most people the answers are pretty obvious.

They weren't bad, but they didn't do enough to set themselves apart either.

[GavinR]

If DC had done with these characters something similar to what they did with the Charlton characters, could it have worked? They could have done an Impact line with the characters but still have them in the DC universe.

[Slam_Bradley]

What went wrong?

Well, first the books were marketed as entry-level books. But kids had no idea who the characters were and we're unlikely to care. Older readers were less likely to pick up what they perceived as kid books.

Second, overall super-hero readers are a superstitious and cowardly lot. They cling to the toys of their youth and ignore most anything else. Thus half a dozen each titles for Batman, Superman and Spider-Man, no matter the quality or lack thereof, while everything else languishes.

Most of the books were decent. Anything with Parobeck art was worth looking at. But the project was doomed.

[GavinR]

But the project was doomed.

I agree that it what doomed from the start and especially because of direct marketing. DC was trying to sell direct to vendors and bring back comics on news stand, spinner rack, drug stores, and all the places we recall buying comics as kids. This never happened and so they had to sell primarily to comic shops. That totally screwed up the entire plan from the start. I also agree with anyone saying these characters were unknown to the target audience that they were aiming for. What was DC thinking at this attempt to start a new imprint? They aren't bad but reading them you know that they aren't going last long. I did like Black Hood, though.

[Max.atwork]

(Is the latest attempt at THUNDER Agents still going? Does anybody care?)

It was a limited series that's over now, I liked it a bit.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

In all I think it was a combination of factors on why the Red Circle characters never have worked in revivals. They have tried them 2-3 times the last 3 decades. In each time they haven't worked. My take its this.

1.) Fans just don't recognize them.

The majority of fans have little clue who the Fly is or who Black Hood is. They know who Superman , Batman and Spider-Man is. But the Red Circle characters ...nope. Its because they haven't gotten out there enough to have a presence on the shelves to do it. In the 1980's they tried reviving them at Archie. That lasted less than a year. In the early 90's we saw Impact line and lately in the 2000's they have tried at DC and now Archie is trying again.

2.) The glut of the 80's and 90's.

In the 1980's the indie movement was on and books like Cerebus and more was making companies publish a lot. I'm sure the thinking at Archie was ...hey we can bring these characters back and it will catch on. Except there was such a glut of indie books then , I'm sure when people saw The Fly on stands they were like...why read this ? Because there was just so many books out there by so many then.

The 1990's fell in the same problem in a sense. There was so many comic book Universes starting by 1991. You had Image , Valiant , Dark Horse and more. Then you had the Impact line which was aimed more or less at a younger audience. It failed pretty quick. Because fans had X Amount of dollars then and with so many universes to dive into , you had a start up.

In all DC decided not to have that problem hit in 2008/2009 when they had the Red Circle heroes. They basically put them in the DCU and tried to make them work best.

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

I bought all of these books as they came out. I arrived too late to witness the beginnings of Stan Lee's Marvel Age or Julie Schwartz's Silver Age, so I welcomed the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a new universe. I think the books benefitted from being in their own reality and not having to work within the DCU.

The best titles were The Fly and The Black Hood. My next favourites were The Jaguar and The Comet, although these got weaker as time went by and creative talents changed. The Web and The Shield didn't really excite me, although the creative talent on Shield was solid enough. I was excited to see more titles introduced like Crusaders and I was hoping to see how all the connections in the universe would play out.

All of the titles had a fresh, positive attitude. Something I welcomed amid all the dark, depressing comics of the time.

Why didn't !mpact succeed on an economic level? I can't answer that, but selling comics is never an easy business. On an artistic level, I think they did succeed. But artistic merit doesn't always sell.

[JKCarrier]

Really, I think the superhero market is just saturated. A new title, unless it's attached to an established franchise, or has some really mind-blowing talent involved, is doomed to get lost in the crowd.

[Rasputin9977]

If DC had done with these characters something similar to what they did with the Charlton characters, could it have worked? They could have done an Impact line with the characters but still have them in the DC universe.

They did this recently before the New 52. I think it was called Red Circle and they introduced several of the Archie characters into the DCU. I guess now that Archie is publishing them again, DC doesn't have the rights to publish them anymore.

[dan bailey]

They did this recently before the New 52. I think it was called Red Circle and they introduced several of the Archie characters into the DCU. I guess now that Archie is publishing them again, DC doesn't have the rights to publish them anymore.

I'm pretty sure DC cancelled them because of poor sales, period. Unless I'm thinking of the latest Milestone characters failure, not that the latter necessarily precludes the former.

[Judomaster]

This is from well after the time I stopped buying new comics. I've always been curious about this attempted re-boot though, because I collect both the 60s books and the early 80s Red Circle/AAS titles. I've said before, the 60's Web is one of my top five favorite characters in comics-dom. Nay, make that top three!

I think DC did its best job incorporating another line of heroes into its universes when they tackled the Quality heroes in the 70s. Freedom Fighters was a great little series. Of course, the writers had the luxury of the pre-crisis multiverse to make this work. Nevertheless, doing it as a group mag, with regular guest appearances from core fan favorites, seems to be the smart way to go. (Poking fun at the golden age heroes of the big rival can't be underestimated either).

[pakehafulla]

Has anybody considered that kids(or just plain people in general) probably dont see a hero called "The Fly" as being particularly attractive/exciting. A fly is dirty and annoying, not exciting, attractive, or evocative of adventure. At least a spider(in the case of Spider-Man) is a bit dangerous and creepy, but a fly...

I would think that even kids would see The Shield as being a poor mans Captain America, and the others...well nothing too cool there that we're missing. I think that this is potentially the problem for the likes of the great Freedom Fighters title or these new Thunder Agents. Lack of recognition and stupid names.

Sure there are the exception to the rule titles like Watchmen, which take unknown characters with no name recognition, and makes a fantastic story with them, but I think if this had used the Charlton characters as originally intended, then it may well have not gone over at all. The reason these characters are seen as B grade is because they are. They are all derivative, usually "created" to fill a need for a Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman space that publisher XYZ thought would suck in a few bucks based on their tenuous similarity to the real character. Their costumes were usually themed as closely as possible to the original as could be done without lawsuit, and their stories are from the same themes as well.

Sure some of them may well have been created before more famous successors(thinking those similar to Spidey here) but that doesnt make them better. The only ones I can think of that deserve coming back, and being given the treatment that they deserve, or even the respect they deserve is the Marvel Family. To be fair though, I would suggest to the powers that be, that they should take Captain Marvel et al back to the whimsical stories he came from. Imagine Captain Marvel, Mary Marvel, and Black Adam by Amanda Conner or Darwyn Cooke...

[Ed Love]

Has anybody considered that kids(or just plain people in general) probably dont see a hero called "The Fly" as being particularly attractive/exciting. A fly is dirty and annoying, not exciting, attractive, or evocative of adventure. At least a spider(in the case of Spider-Man) is a bit dangerous and creepy, but a fly...

I would think that even kids would see The Shield as being a poor mans Captain America, and the others...well nothing too cool there that we're missing. I think that this is potentially the problem for the likes of the great Freedom Fighters title or these new Thunder Agents. Lack of recognition and stupid names.

Sure there are the exception to the rule titles like Watchmen, which take unknown characters with no name recognition, and makes a fantastic story with them, but I think if this had used the Charlton characters as originally intended, then it may well have not gone over at all. The reason these characters are seen as B grade is because they are. They are all derivative, usually "created" to fill a need for a Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman space that publisher XYZ thought would suck in a few bucks based on their tenuous similarity to the real character. Their costumes were usually themed as closely as possible to the original as could be done without lawsuit, and their stories are from the same themes as well.

Sure some of them may well have been created before more famous successors(thinking those similar to Spidey here) but that doesnt make them better. The only ones I can think of that deserve coming back, and being given the treatment that they deserve, or even the respect they deserve is the Marvel Family. To be fair though, I would suggest to the powers that be, that they should take Captain Marvel et al back to the whimsical stories he came from. Imagine Captain Marvel, Mary Marvel, and Black Adam by Amanda Conner or Darwyn Cooke...

The problem with the Shield is that every take with him since the 1940s has been to make him derivative! Actually, in the 1940s he was also a bit derivative only it was originally of Superman. He predated Captain America. Another problem is that most takes have him being more passive in his origin (much like Cap). He was originally a much more dynamic character. He came up with the serum that gave him powers. He aced the FBI written and physical exams. Even after he lost his powers, he proved he still had what it takes to be a hero.

I think Watchmen wouldn't have been as great because it wouldn't have freed Moore up to do a lot of what he did. With the Charlton characters, it would have had to be an "in continuity" tale and would ultimately have been a much different story. The best thing done for him was when he was turned down and told to resubmit with his own characters as a self contained story.

The simple fact is that almost all new titles fail and those with new characters at a higher rate than others. Especially with the current system where superheroes dominate but only if they are pre-existing or made to be more cynical and adult. Relaunching the characters as all new characters with just similar names and powersets, that's pretty much exactly what I can get from Marvel and DC these days.

I think Impact failed for several reasons, one being the up front marketing to stores as being for kids instead of just going after a straight forward superhero market. If you're seriously going after the kids market, then you have to break out of the Direct Market. Unless you're putting top talent, it's a mistake to limit yourself in your ability to cross promote the books ie with the rest of the established DCU (they came so close to getting this right in the most DC revival). And, as good as the stories were, the talent was indeed mostly unproven and relative unknowns. Lastly, it followed the path of the 80's Red Circle revival, starting off strong but quickly bringing in less competitive talent.